In a paper entitled, "On the Very Possibility of Intelligent Design," published in the book, The Creation Hypothesis, back in 1992, William Dembski offered the following thought experiment: Read the rest of this entry »

A little known fact from history is that Ghandi had a faithful sidekicK:

In his book Endless Forms Most Beautiful, Sean Carroll explains the role of tool kit genes in the development of organisms. Tool kit genes express products that in turn regulate whether or not other genes are turned on during embryological development. As such, most of them are transcription factors that bind to regulatory regions of a gene, regions Carroll refers to as switches. What thus determines whether or not a particular gene is expressed during development is the combination of activated and repressed switches as a consequence of the composition of the tool kit gene products.

The teleological echo of all this can be seen from more than one angle.

More

If you ask me, Shalini, the self-described "pro-Dawkins evangelical atheist," is becoming increasingly confused. In response to "Don't Call Me Miltant!!," Shalini has this to say:

Over at Telic Thoughts, MikeGene is apparently up in arms over my anti-appeaser post.

This is a classic example of projection.

Read the rest of this entry »

We've updated our blogroll. First, you'll find Michael Behe's Blog, where Behe responds to his critics. Second, you'll find Thought Provoker's blog and his continued exploration of the Third Choice. Finally, there is mcromer's blog, Science is a method, not a position, which he desribes as follows: "I don't cover ID much, but I talk a lot about the sociology of science and the proper practice of science." Enjoy.

I wrote this several weeks ago and it was destined for oblivion. But in light of the recent diatribes from Dawkins Fans, I suppose it's worth posting.

Richard Dawkins offers a "rebuttal" to some of his critics. Since this was brought to my attention, let's have a look. First he responds to his fellow atheists who wish to dissociate themselves from his "shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language."

Read the rest of this entry »

I'll be super-duper busy over the next week, so let me post a public reminder to myself of the laundry list of essays I'd like to finish before the summer is over.

1. Raise the "intriguing possibility" as promised to TP. __X__
2. Pick up where I left off here. _____
3. Evidence that supports a front-loading prediction. _____
4. Evidence that supports another front-loading prediction. _____
5. Begin fleshing out an answer to this question about front-loading. ____

Over at the Evolution and Rationality blog, Shalini, a self-described "pro-Dawkins evangelical atheist", asks, "Whatever did we do to deserve the title militant?"

Read the rest of this entry »

From here:

In the second paper, the group poses a new question, never before asked by scientists studying embryos: How precisely can cells in the embryo read the blueprint? So precisely, the paper suggests, that a precious few molecules signaling a change can make a decisive difference.

"I think the prevailing view has been that cells accomplish all their functions using a complicated combination of mechanisms, each one of which is rather sloppy or noisy," said team member William Bialek, the John Archibald Wheeler/Battelle Professor in Physics. "This research, however, indicates that in the initial hours of a fly embryo's development, cells make decisions to become one part of the body or another by a process so precise that they must be close to counting every available signaling molecule they receive from the mother.""¦"¦"This signaling requires a sensitivity approaching the limits set by basic physical principles," Bialek said.

So, our planet may actually provide a very good guide to alien biospheres. Even if the planetary environment is very different, say a very dense atmosphere or giant oceans, we can still make a good estimate of what one day we may find. Not only that, but convergence tells us aliens will even think in much the same way"¦.Neo-Darwinians typically assume human-like intelligence is an evolutionary fluke, a historical accident. If correct, then the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is a complete waste of time. But what we see on this planet tells us otherwise. All the evidence suggests the cognitive world of dolphins is remarkably similar to that of the the great apes. Certainly, both are mammals, but chimps don't live in oceans and the brain structures are markedly different. Even more remarkable is the cognitive architecture of birds, especially crows. Again it maps closely against the mind of the great apes but their brain is now known to be built to a completely different plan. When it comes to tool use the New Caledonian crows are well ahead of chimps. And the convergences don't stop there: warm-bloodedness and singing are convergent with mammals. So is social play. Did you know crows enjoy skiing? And what about the New Zealand parrot known as the kea? Watch out for those delinquent gangs of teenage birds as they roam around trashing cars.

- Simon Conway Morris. 2006. Evolutionary Convergence. Current Biology 16: R826-R827